ANONYMOUS,
A.M. No. P-07-2404
Complainant, [Formerly
OCA-I.P.I. No. 05-2097-P]
Present:
-
versus - QUISUMBING, J.,
Chairperson,
CARPIO,
CARPIO
MORALES,
JENNIFER
P. VELARDE-LAOLAO, TINGA, and
Clerk,
MTCC – Branch 6
VELASCO, JR., JJ.
Respondent.
Promulgated:
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Tinga,
J.:
This administrative case originated
from an anonymous letter[1]
dated December 2003 questioning the status of Jennifer Velarde- Laolao
(respondent), who was employed as a regular court employee while enrolled as a
regular nursing student.
The
undisputed facts, as culled from the records, are as follows:
Respondent
was employed as Clerk III at Branch 6, Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC)
of
In
December 2003, an anonymous letter was sent to then Chief Justice Hilario
Davide, Jr., stating that respondent was employed at the MTCC and concurrently enrolled
as a nursing student in
December 2003
The Hon. Chief Justice Hilario Davide
Supreme Court of the Phils.
Dear Sir[:]
We
are employees of the Supreme Court based here in
What
we are questioning is her status now because she is enjoying the privilege of a
regular employee and at the same time a regular nursing student. Her co-employees are questioning her status,
because according to her she asked permission from our head office in
In
the 1st Indorsement dated
On
The dean confirmed that respondent
was enrolled as a third year nursing student, with classes on Mondays from 2:00
p.m. to 7:00 p.m., Tuesdays from 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Saturdays from
12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.[8]
On
CSC-Davao observed that the absences
incurred by respondent caused a backlog in her work. To cope with the workload, respondent asked
her cousin, Cecille Villaflor (Villaflor), to perform her job during her
absence. Villaflor was allowed to work
twice a week in the afternoons, despite absence of any document authorizing her
to have access to official documents.[10]
Furthermore, CSC-Davao found that respondent
worked during Saturdays and Sundays to lessen her work backlog. It was noted that the daily time records of
respondent were duly certified by the branch clerk of court and not by Judge
Laolao. The applications for leave of
absence on file with the office of the MTCC Clerk of Court do not show whether they were approved or
disapproved. CSC-Davao could not
determine whether respondent still had leave credits because the MTCC-Davao did
not maintain the leave records of its employees.[11]
In
the 1st Indorsement[12]
dated
On
In
response to the 1st Indorsement of OCA, the Clerk of Court of MTCC-Davao, Branch 6, Nicanor M. Elumbaring
(Elumbaring), claimed that the audit findings of CSC-Davao that respondent
incurred a total of 112 days tardy[14] contradicted the records of the MTCC
consisting of the daily time records, photocopies of application for leave of
absence and photocopies of the Daily Logbook of Attendance which reflected only
82 counts of tardiness.[15]
In
her Comment[16] dated
In his 2nd Indorsement[19]
dated
In
its Report[23] dated
On
Judge
Fuentes conducted three separate hearings[26]
in which respondent, Judge Laolao and Elumbaring appeared.
In
his Report of Investigation,[27]
Judge Fuentes made the following findings: (1) that respondent, who was
permanently appointed as Clerk III in Branch 6, MTCC-Davao, enrolled in a
nursing course in June 2002 without informing Judge Laolao nor the OCA; (2)
that when she so informed the presiding judge, she was instructed to secure a
written authority to study from the OCA; (3) that without waiting for
authorization from the OCA, she proceeded with her studies; (4) that because of
her studies, she spent most of her time in school than in the office; (5) that
her cousin, Villaflor, not being an employee of the court, worked as her
substitute; (6) that despite knowledge of respondent’s enrollment, Judge Laolao
and Elumbaring failed to report this matter to the OCA. Judge Fuentes recommended that respondent be
dismissed from service after finding her guilty of violating her duties as a
court employee and committing acts of deception. He also found
Judge Laolao and Elumbaring guilty of gross negligence and recommended
that they be suspended and fined, respectively. The pertinent portions of the
Report are reproduced as follows:
Accordingly,
with all the foregoing, the undersigned, on the basis of the written statements
and admission voluntarily submitted, finds Ms. Jennifer P. Velarde-Laolao,
Clerk III of MTCC Branch 6, guilty of gross violation of her duties and
performance of her official function[s] through [the] fraudulent act of
deception contrary to Supreme Court rules and regulations and formulated code
of conduct of employees in the [J]udiciary, with recommendation of her outright
dismissal in the service to give [sic]
example to everybody in the government, particularly in the [J]udiciary, to
consider their employment with the Court, with utmost honesty without selfish
and ulterior motive of personal enrichment but with efficiency and dedication.
For
Judge Antonio P. Laolao, Sr., it appears in his own admission, he is guilty of
gross negligence in the supervision of his employees[,] even has the temerity
to first declare he had no knowledge about the study of her daughter-in-law in
nursing course but by Jennifer P. Velarde-Laolao herself, and the Clerk of
Court, Mr. Nicanor M. Elumbaring, certifies [sic], the Presiding Judge knew of said fact, but failed to inform
the Supreme Court about it.
Moreover,
it is clear as testified by Jennifer P. Velarde-Laolao about somebody taking
over her work in Court, without prior authority from the Supreme Court and the
City Government of Davao, is a patent and gross violation of Judge Laolao’s
duty of diligently supervising his employees in strictly carrying their duties
and official functions.
The
undersigned recommends, Judge Antonio P. Laolao, Sr. for gross negligence, and
in allowing Jennifer P. Velarde-Laolao, his daughter-in-law, to continue her
employment as Clerk III, as Criminal Records In-charge, while at the same time
taking nursing without prior authority from the Supreme Court, will be
suspended for a period of time as the Supreme Court will decide.
In
the case of Nicanor M. Elumbaring, aside from his poor management of the court
personnel under his direct supervision, it appears during the investigation in
this written statement, he deliberately hid material fact, of his personal
knowledge. Apparently, he wanted to
support the defense of Judge [Laolao] and even wanted to hide material and
important matters, to cover up the responsibility and liability of Jennifer P.
Velarde-Laolao, but later, due to the firm questioning of the undersigned, he
admitted, what he repeatedly tried to hide and cover, revealing what actually
appears the truth against Jennifer Velarde-Laolao, including Judge Antonio P.
Laolao, Sr. in the charge against them.
The
undersigned finds Mr. Nicanor M. Elumbaring, Clerk of Court, MTCC, Br. 6, Davao
City, guilty of gross negligence, in the strict compliance of his duty as
direct superior of Jennifer P. Velarde-Laolao, by covert act, of trying to
cover up his failure to report what happened, with the Supreme Court, through
the Office of the Court Administrator, is recommended, to pay a fine, in the
amount as the discretion of the Supreme Court, will consider.[28]
Prefatorily,
it bears stressing that the conduct and behavior of one connected with an
office charged with the dispensation of justice is circumscribed with the heavy
burden of responsibility. This Court cannot countenance any act or omission on
the part of all those involved in the administration of justice which would
violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to
diminish the faith of the people on the judiciary.[29]
With
this principle in mind, we find that respondent has transgressed the
established norm of conduct for court employees.
Respondent
does not deny that she was enrolled in a regular two-year nursing course
starting from June 2002 to March 2004.
Her classes usually start at
From June 2002 to February 2004,
respondent had incurred a total of 194.5 days of absence and 136 counts of
tardiness. For the second semester of
2002, respondent should have been considered habitually tardy as she reported
late for work 12 times in July, 11 times in September and 10 times in December.[32] This infraction is punishable by reprimand
for the first offense.[33]
Civil Service Memorandum Circular No.
23, Series of 1998, applies without distinction to all government employees. It
provides:
Any employee shall be considered habitually tardy if he incurs tardiness, regardless of the number of minutes, ten (10) times a month for at least two (2) months in a semester or at least two (2) consecutive months during the year.
In the month of July 2003, respondent
incurred 13.5 days of absence and was late 5 times. In fact, she was present and on time for only
one day for that month. The following
month, she was absent for 12 days and was 4 times late. Worse, she was never on time for even a
day. In September 2003, she was absent
for 12.5 days and 7 times late. Likewise,
she never came on time. Respondent was
absent for 15 days in January and 13.5 days in February 2004. While these absences and tardiness may have
been authorized, we are appalled by their frequency. This leads us to the inevitable conclusion
that respondent had been remiss in her duties.
Absenteeism and tardiness, even if they do not qualify as “habitual” or
“frequent” under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 04, s.1991, shall be dealt with
severely.
Court officials and employees must
strictly observe official time.[34]
As punctuality is a virtue, absenteeism and tardiness are impermissible.[35]
By reason of the nature and functions of their office, officials and employees
must be role models in the faithful observance of the constitutional canon that
public office is a public trust. Inherent in this mandate is the observance of
prescribed office hours and the efficient use of every moment thereof for
public service, if only to recompense the Government and ultimately, the people
who shoulder the cost of maintaining the Judiciary.[36]
Respondent
claimed that she sought the OCA’s permission to study through a letter[37]
purportedly addressed to then Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. The OCA, however, denied having received a
copy of said letter.
While the Court does not deter one
from pursuing further studies to enhance his or her professional growth, such
studies must not prejudice the rendition of public service. The Court observes that it is not uncommon
for employees to do everything in their power to better their lot. However,
one's pursuit of personal development and improvement, without regard to the
demands of ethics and utmost responsibility in the public service, should never
be countenanced by the Court.[38]
Respondent rationalized that she had
been rendering overtime work on weekdays, as well as on weekends to compensate for
her frequent absences and tardiness.
Consequently, she had been able to cope with her workload. This justification was backed by Judge
Laolao.
The law requires that all officers and employees of all departments and
agencies, except those covered by special laws, to render not less than eight
(8) hours of work a day for five (5) days a week or a total of forty (40) hours
a week, exclusive of time for lunch. As a general rule, such hours
shall be from
Thus, respondent cannot use her
overtime work to justify her frequent absences and tardiness. The civil service rules explicitly prohibit
the offsetting of tardiness or absence by working for an equivalent number of
minutes or hours by which an employee has been tardy or absent, beyond the
regular or approved working hours of the employees concerned.[40] The
rationale behind this rule is concomitant to the policy on efficient,
effective, economical and honest use of government resources to avoid wastage
in public funds.[41] The same principle applies to the case at bar
wherein respondent sought to justify her frequent absences and tardiness by
working overtime on weekdays and weekends. By rendering overtime work on weekdays
and weekends, respondent is in effect using government resources to make up for
her shortcomings.
Section 5 of Canon 3 of the Code of
Conduct for Court Personnel provides:
The full-time position in the
Judiciary of every court personnel shall be the personnel’s primary
employment. For purposes of this Code,
“primary employment” means the position that consumes the entire normal working
hours of the court personnel and requires the personnel’s exclusive attention
in performing official duties.
It must be stressed that all employees
of the judiciary must devote their official time to government service. They must
exercise, at all times, a high degree of professionalism and responsibility, as
service in the judiciary is not only a duty, it is a mission.
Moreover, the image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the
conduct of the men and women who work there, from the judge to the last and
lowest of its employees.[42]
Neglect of duty is readily apparent
from the circumstances in this case. Simple neglect signifies a disregard of a
duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.[43] As a consequence of her enrollment in June
2002, respondent’s attendance had tremendously suffered for two years causing
her to seek the assistance of her cousin to be able to keep up with the
workload. Simple neglect of duty, as a
less grave offense, is punishable by suspension of one (1) month and one (1)
day to six (6) months for the first offense.[44]
The act of respondent in requesting
Villaflor, who is not an employee of the court, to perform her official duties
is highly improper. Villaflor did not undergo the appointment process prescribed
in the civil service rules consisting of selection,
appointment, receipt of commission
and taking of the oath of office,[45]
hence, she cannot be considered an employee of the court. As Villaflor was not officially connected
with the court, respondent should not have asked her to file court records for
bundle, photocopy documents, and at one instance, transcribe a warrant of
arrest.[46] Records of cases are necessarily
confidential, and to preserve their integrity and confidentiality, access
thereto ought to be limited only to the judge, the parties or their counsel and
the appropriate court personnel in charge of the custody thereof.[47] The Code of Conduct for Court Personnel
prohibits court personnel from disclosing to any unauthorized person any
confidential information acquired by them while employed in the judiciary,
whether such information came from authorized or unauthorized sources.
The acts of respondent thus
constitute a violation of the Civil Service Law and the Code of Conduct for
Court Personnel, which acts are punishable by suspension of one (1) month and one
(1) day to six (6) months.[48]
Pursuant to Section 55 of CSC
Memorandum Circular No. 19-99, if the respondent is found guilty of two (2) or
more charges, the penalty to be imposed should be that corresponding to the
most serious charge and the rest shall be considered as aggravating
circumstances. Section 54-c of the same Memorandum Circular provides that the
maximum of the penalty shall be imposed where only aggravating and no
mitigating circumstances are present. Since in this case, the penalty is the
same for the two offenses and the offense of habitual tardiness is only
punishable by reprimand, the maximum of the penalty for the graver offense
which is suspension for six (6) months may be imposed on respondent.
As for Judge Laolao, he testified that he had no
knowledge of the fact that respondent had enrolled in a nursing school until he
was informed thereof three months later. He alleged that he advised respondent
to seek permission from the Supreme Court, not knowing that the letter
solicited no response. His statement is contradictory to the 1st Indorsement[49]
sent to the OCA which he himself signed, recommending that respondent’s request
to study be granted. Said indorsement
was dated
As the presiding judge, Judge Laolao
exercises supervision over the conduct and performance of the court personnel, who
are primarily employed to aid in the administration of justice. He has the duty to take or initiate
appropriate disciplinary measures against lawyers or court personnel for
unprofessional conduct of which he may have become aware.[50]
Clearly, Judge Laolao failed in this regard. Furthermore,
being related to respondent by affinity, he should have been more circumspect
with respect to the attendance of respondent to avoid any suspicion of bias in
the latter’s favor.
The clerk of court is the administrative officer of
the court, subject to the control and supervision of the presiding judge.[51] Among his duties is the exercise of control
and supervision over all court records, exhibits, documents, properties and
supplies.[52]
The responsibility in ensuring the smooth and
efficient flow of business in court falls primarily upon the shoulders of the
presiding judge and the branch clerk of court.
We both find Judge Laolao and Elumbaring liable for
simple neglect of duty. Simple neglect of duty is a less grave
offense punishable by suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6)
months. However, it appears that this is their first offense, and consistent
with current jurisprudence on the subject, the Court deems it best to merely
penalize them with three (3)-month suspension and a stern warning that a
repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.[53]
Public service requires integrity and
discipline. For this reason, public servants must exhibit at all times the
highest degree of honesty and dedication to duty. By the very
nature of their duties and responsibilities, government employees must
faithfully adhere to, hold sacred, and render inviolatable the constitutional
principle that a public office is a public trust; that all public officers and
employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with
utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.
WHEREFORE, respondent
Jennifer Velarde-Laolao, Clerk III, MTCC Davao, is hereby SUSPENDED for a
period of six (6) months and given a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the
same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. Judge Antonio P. Laolao and Clerk of Court
Nicanor Elumbaring are found GUILTY of simple neglect of duty and are each
meted the penalty of SUSPENSION from office for a period of THREE (3) MONTHS without
pay. They are also STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of similar infractions will
be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO T. CARPIO CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR.
Associate Justice
[3]
[14]As per
Court’s computation, the actual tardiness incurred by respondent as marked by
the spot audit report is 133 days.
[29]AWOL
of Monsanto, A.M. No. P-06-2183.
[35]Re: Violation of Administrative Circular No.
14-2002 by Mr. Geminiano P. Perez, A.M. No. 2005-20-SC,
[38]Re: Dishonesty and/or Falsification Of
Official Document Of Mr. Rogelio M. Valdezco, Jr., FMBO, A.M. No.
2005-22-SC,
[41]Republic
Act No. 6713, Sec. (a) entitled Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees.
[43]Sps. Blanquisco v. Atty. Austero-Bolilan,
469 Phil. 487, 495.